Inspect website component

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive action, the description adds value by detailing the exact returns (bounds, styles, pseudo-elements, etc.), giving the agent expectations for output. It does not contradict annotations and provides a bit more behavioral context beyond them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word is useful. It avoids fluff and efficiently conveys purpose and return contents.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, output schema, sibling tools), the description adequately covers the essential purpose and return values. It does not need to explain every parameter since the schema does that. A small gap is the lack of mention of auto-scrolling or network behavior, but these are covered by annotations and param descriptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description reinforces the 'selector' and 'live website' aspects but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already explains. No new parameter syntax or format details are introduced.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Inspect'), identifies the resource ('elements matching a CSS selector on a live website'), and lists concrete return types (bounds, computed styles, attributes, pseudo-elements, child structure, HTML sample). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like capture_screenshot or analyze_site.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: it is for inspecting specific components on a live website via CSS selector. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the focus on selector-based inspection implies when it is appropriate (e.g., for a specific element) versus other tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.